An Inconvenient Truth

[Harlan Huckleby]

Interesting choice of words there huck. It will grow exponentially. A bunch of scientists sat around a table and decided by committee what the data meant and allocated 1.8 billion dollars to global warming research

Come on now. Climate Science is VERY difficult stuff. But these are not fools. They propose models, and those models are tested against emperical evidence, over time. And the fact that many thousands of people around the world are investigating the problem is a good thing.

I would compare Climate Science to study of the human brain. It is an attempt to model a system that is complex beyond comprehension. Understanding comes with trial & error & misfires, but it comes.

If you want to dismiss the world wide community of climate scientists as a bunch of pointy-headed bumblers, what do you propose we replace them with? Personal observation?

The economic forces of higher fuel prices will drive innovation, just so long as the greenies don't try to interfere and protect us

Notion that environment could be adequately protected by market forces is absurd. Look where air quality was at and heading in 1970, and how dramatically it improved as the result of EPA regulations. The EPA created by Richard Nixon, BTW.

[MJZiggy]

Is it my imagination or did I read that Bush was trying to get rid of the EPA?

[mraynrand]

Come on now. Climate Science is VERY difficult stuff.


Look where air quality was at and heading in 1970, and how dramatically it improved as the result of EPA regulations. The EPA created by Richard Nixon, BTW.

Somehow, although climate science is very difficult, you are able to understand that the conslusions made by a committee are correct. Maybe YOU could serve on the board that decides which science is right and wrong. Hell, with the new model of how to do climatology being the convening of a committee, you could probably just do the 'experiments' at home in your head and send the 'results' directly to 'Science' and 'Nature' magazines.

Some EPA regulations may have helped, but if you check, you'll actually find that most improvements in the environment were actually made as a result of engines and processes being made more efficient as a cost-cutting technique or just as a general improvement in the process. A lot of the cleaner burning fuels and engines are used today because they work better (it's called innovation), not because some governmental bureaucrat mandated it. I'm not against the EPA, monitoring pollution, etc. - but to give them sole credit for reducing pollution from factories and autos would be absurd.

And who cares whether the EPA was under Nixon? Nixon was more liberal in many ways than JFK. If JFK were around today, he's be a Republican and Nixon would be a Democrat. Dubya is more liberal by far with regard to governmental spending than JFK was. The only difference really, is that Dubya is more conservative with respect to social issues - but that should be obvious since he isn't using the Secret Service as pimps.

[mraynrand]

And the fact that many thousands of people around the world are investigating the problem is a good thing.

Really? How many thousands should study the problem? Is 1.8 billion enough to spend? Perhaps if Al Gore is elected pres in 2008, he'll dedicate several more billions to the study of specifically the global warming problem. I wonder who will determine how much is enough? Perhaps the climatologists? Of course, they are unbiased scientists and would only ask for the bare minimum to understand the problem, right?

[mraynrand]

I would compare Climate Science to study of the human brain. It is an attempt to model a system that is complex beyond comprehension. Understanding comes with trial & error & misfires, but it comes.

I'm confused here. If a system is 'complex beyond comprehension' then how can understanding come? And I would think that a 'trial and error' approach would be an especially wasteful and inefficient manner in which to understand a process that is 'complex beyond comprehension.' Perhaps we should just convene a committee of climate scientists to claim that global warming is a fact, that the debate is over, and that we still need 1.8 billion more to study a known fact.

[the_idle_threat]

This should solve everything.



By DAVID GRAM, Associated Press Writer Fri Jun 30, 7:58 AM ET

BRIDPORT, Vt. - The cows at the Audet family's Blue Spruce Farm make nearly 9,000 gallons of milk a day — and about 35,000 gallons of manure.
ADVERTISEMENT

It's long been the milk that pays, but now the Audets have figured out how to make the manure pay as well. They're using it — actually, the methane that comes from it — to generate electricity.

With the help of their power company, Central Vermont Public Service Corp., the Audets have devised a way to extract the methane from the manure and pipe it to a generator.

They make enough electricity to power 300 to 400 average Vermont homes. It's renewable energy, and they're not the only ones interested in it. Four other Vermont farms now have similar projects in the planning or early construction stages, power company officials said.

The Audets "deserve to be congratulated. They're the pioneers among Vermont farmers," said Dave Dunn, a senior energy consultant with CVPS who worked with them on the cow power project.

Elsewhere in the country, farmers are using similar technology to make energy, said Corey Brickl, project manager with Wisconsin-based GHD Inc., which built a device that the Audets use to harvest the methane.

One in Washington uses tomato waste from a salsa factory and waste from a fish stick plant as fuel, Brickl said.

For the Audets, the electricity has created an important new income stream at a time when low wholesale milk prices have squeezed their margin. The utility pays 95 percent of the going New England wholesale power price for electricity from the Audets' generator.

In addition, the utility charges customers willing to pay it a 4-cents-per-kilowatt-hour premium for renewable energy and then turns the money over to the Audets. So far, more than 3,000 CVPS customers have signed up to pay the premium to support the renewable energy effort.

The bottom line is more than $120,000 a year from electricity sales. When they add in other energy savings enabled by the project, the Audets expect their $1.2 million investment in project equipment to pay for itself in about seven years.

The program has piqued interest.

Marie Audet, who describes herself as wife, bookkeeper, and milker, has become a tour guide, showing people from the United States and a handful of other countries around the farm's cow power operation.

Managing the hundreds of milking Holsteins — as well as young stock — is a high-tech operation.

In their stalls, cows munch contentedly on a mix of hay and silage while they make an occasional contribution of fuel for the Audets' power plant. An "alley scraper," which looks like a big squeegee on wheels, comes by to push their manure down the row and through grates to a conveyor belt below.

From there, the manure goes to an anaerobic — meaning oxygen-free — digester, a 100-foot-by-70-foot structure similar to a covered swimming pool built by Brickl's company. The manure spends 20 or 21 days in the digester, being pushed slowly from one end to other as more is added.

Three products result: a liquid that contains enough nutrients that it can be used as fertilizer for the farm's feed crops; a dry, odor-free, fluffy brown substance that is used as bedding for the cows and some of which goes to a local firm that bags and sells it as fertilizer on the home-and-garden market; and methane.

The methane is piped into an adjacent shed that contains a big Caterpillar engine that powers the 200-kilowatt generator.

Audet said the farm was saving the $1,200 a week it formerly spent on sawdust bedding for the cows, as well as some of the cost of heating the milking barn. A study by agricultural scientists from the University of Vermont found that the bedding produced from the manure was better than the sawdust. "Wood harbors a lot of bacteria," she said.

With the success of the 200-kW unit, the Audets are expanding by adding a new, 75-kilowatt hour generator. And Audet said she's even grown to like giving the tours.

"It's bringing a lot of people to the farm who are normally very removed from food producers," she said.

___

On the Net:

Central Vermont Public Service: http://www.cvps.com

If burning bullshit can be made into a reliable energy source, then we've just discovered a use for the FYI thread! And all of Tank's posts!



























































... and all of my posts!

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm confused here. If a system is 'complex beyond comprehension' then how can understanding come? And I would think that a 'trial and error' approach would be an especially wasteful and inefficient

Understanding comes from creating a description, or model, of the complex system. Then you collect data, perform experiments, and test/refine the model, keep learning.

Newtonian physics was a model that described the physical world, it held up for 300 years. On closer inspection, it was found to be wrong - replaced by quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics worked for a while, but then it too became inadequate to explain everything, replaced by quantum dynamics. Now, maybe string theory.

We'll never completely comprehend the brain, or the universe, or our planet. We just continuously refine or replace models, and use the models for practical purposes along the way.

Sorry for the "our friend science" lecture.

[Harlan Huckleby]

listen to excellent radio show on electric cars:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5524918

[mraynrand]

Newtonian physics was a model that described the physical world, it held up for 300 years. On closer inspection, it was found to be wrong - .

Ha ha ha!

I guess F no longer equals MxA! A body in motion no longer tends to stay in motion! That's a good one Huck!

[mraynrand]

listen to excellent radio show on electric cars:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5524918

Huck, you gotta expand your horizons. Nothing wrong with a little NPR, but if that's your primary news source, you're in a lot of trouble. Listen to NPR and you will discover:

1) All cello players are lesbians
2) Socialism is an effective economic model
3) Atheism is a direct correlate of Darwinism
4) No single human outside the U.S. actually likes the U.S.
5) Most Americans hate the U.S.
6) WMDs were the only stated reason for the U.S. liberation of Iraq
7) Human embryonic stem cells hold the key for all human progress
8) Human created global warming is an undebateable certainty that will wipe out civilization as we know it
9) SUV drivers are demon spawn
10) Jazz is the most popular form of music in the USA, and all forms of ethnic and tribal music around the world are better than European symphonies

[Harlan Huckleby]

Ha ha ha!

I guess F no longer equals MxA! A body in motion no longer tends to stay in motion! That's a good one Huck!

Actually Newton's laws only appear to be true at slow speeds (much slower than speed of light.)
For instance, your F=MA equation? The mass actually increases as it accelerates. At slow speeds, the mass increase is too small to notice. (The disortion of mass and space with speed is relativity.)

As far as your first law of motion, my glib answer is it depends on the frame of reference that you observe from.

But back to topic. The "Global Cooling" models back in the 70's weren't "wrong", they were just incomplete. Just like Newton's laws aren't entirely "wrong". The Global Cooling factors are still included in the new models that predict Global Warming. Both the types of pollution have changed, and understanding of earth has moved forward.

Anyway, enough. It is true that the models today are not "true", they will get changed again. But they get better, I believe that much. Guess I am believer in forward progress of science.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5524918

Huck, you gotta expand your horizons. Nothing wrong with a little NPR, but if that's your primary news source, you're in a lot of trouble.

I love the NPR discussion shows, especially On Point. Ya, sometimes the hosts bring a decidely liberal bias, but they do bring-in a nice cross-section of guests.
Check out the quality of discussion: http://www.onpointradio.org/

I also read the Wall Street Journal, watch Fox News, and listen to right-wing radio shows. So don't worry too much about my being brain-washed, I'll be OK.

[mraynrand]

Ha ha ha!

I guess F no longer equals MxA! A body in motion no longer tends to stay in motion! That's a good one Huck!

Actually Newton's laws only appear to be true at slow speeds (much slower than speed of light.)
For instance, your F=MA equation? The mass actually increases as it accelerates. At slow speeds, the mass increase is too small to notice. (The disortion of mass and space with speed is relativity.)

As far as your first law of motion, my glib answer is it depends on the frame of reference that you observe from.

But back to topic. The "Global Cooling" models back in the 70's weren't "wrong", they were just incomplete. Just like Newton's laws aren't entirely "wrong". The Global Cooling factors are still included in the new models that predict Global Warming. Both the types of pollution have changed, and understanding of earth has moved forward.

Anyway, enough. It is true that the models today are not "true", they will get changed again. But they get better, I believe that much. Guess I am believer in forward progress of science.

No shit F=MA works at far below sublight speeds. That's where Newtonian mechanics are relevant. Maybe next you're going to derive Schroedinger's wave equation for me.

Both types of pollution have changed? What do you mean?

Huck have you read the primary papers on global warming? Go read the original articles from Science and Nature for the past four to five years. Look at the models. Even for a scientists untrained in climatology, I can tell bullshit science when I see it. Global cooling trends in equatorial regions are ignored, 'inexplicably' high CO2 levels over China and the Pacific ocean and far lower CO2 levels over the USA are dismissed with a hand wave. Projection models are confused with Predictive models. Measured and predicted temperatures are routinely ignored when they don't fit the paradigm. Changes in deserts and forests, known to be the result of changing wind patterns are attributed to global warming by ignoramuses. Scientific results are determined at conference tables over field research results. Who the *uck really knows given most of this crap? We could be headed for disaster and not know it because the science has been totally corrupted.


BTW, if you watch FOX news other than Brit Hume and a couple of other decent features, you're wasting your time. FOX has it's collection of idealogues and blowhards and an insufferable amount of trajedy du jour as well. 95% of 'cable news' could be put off the air and we'd never miss it. Greta van Susteren, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olberman should be forced to watch Gilligan's Island reruns for the rest of their lives as punishment for the crap they put on the air.

[Harlan Huckleby]

No shit F=MA works at far below sublight speeds.

OK, but point is that F=MA was always imprecise model at any speed, and people didn't realize it. They thought they had discovered some fundamental truth. Same deal with quantum mechanics. I'm blowing hard about this only to make analogy to Global Warming model, fact that it will someday be revised does not mean it is bad science or useless.

Huck have you read the primary papers on global warming? Go read the original articles from Science and Nature for the past four to five years. Look at the models. Even for a scientists untrained in climatology, I can tell bullshit science when I see it. Global cooling trends in equatorial regions are ignored, 'inexplicably' high CO2 levels over China and the Pacific ocean and far lower CO2 levels over the USA are dismissed with a hand wave. Projection models are confused with Predictive models. Measured and predicted temperatures are routinely ignored when they don't fit the paradigm.

There are anomalies. A thickening of ice in parts of Antartic. The fact that temperatures cooled slightly from 1950-1970 during industrialization period. But it's untrue that the problems are ignored. I read explanations for these discrepencies, they sound plausible to me, but what do I know?

How are we to evaluate the quality of the science? Well, the Republicans in the Senate were suspicious/disgruntled with the science, so they ordered a non-partisian panel from the Academy of Sciences to do a year-long review of the scientific methods. The report came back two weeks ago, it described uncertainties in the predictions, but generally substantiated the science.

Who are we to believe? Your analysis may be impressive, could even be correct. But this is not an issue where individual scientists can weigh all factors. I'm not asking a rhetorical question, please propose who/how the scientific decision should be made.

BTW, you made a misleading statement a while back, suggesting that the GW advocates take surveys of generalists to prove consenus. On the contrary, this is from the playbook of the skeptics! The community of Climate Scientists have a strong consensus in favor of the Global Warming models; in fact, a more relevant criticism is that they are locked into a group think mode, with a self-interest in perpetuating GW concern. Check the surveys, when doubt is cast about GW, it is from "meteorologists" or "scientists."

Well, to answer my own question, I'm trusting the judgment of the majority of Climate Scientists, even if this is imperfect. They are taking stock of all the data. The GW theory has been tested and debated for 25 years, and grows in credibility and acceptance.

[Mr. T]

Hey everyone,

I love to debate about this subject. I really don't have time to organize my thoughts, so this is kind of a rant.

A few points. (keep in mind that I haven't read this entire thread, sorry for repeats)

First of all, as some have pointed out, recent global warming exists only depending on the time frame that is chosen. I think HH mentioned that between 1950's and 1970's, the earth experienced a cooling period.

Second, I didn't see any mention of the effects of WATER! I have never ever once heard the media mention water in their discussion of global warming.

Every time you burn gasoline, you not only create carbon dioxide, but you also create water vapor! That's why it looks like there's smoke coming out of the tailpipe of your car during the winter (the water condenses as it hits cold air). Observe the chemical equation below

[typical molecular
formula of gas] [oxygen] [carbon dioxide] [water vapor]
C8H15 + 15.5 (O2) =======> 8 (CO2) + 7.5 (H2O)

You can look this up in any chemistry book, it's a standard combustion reaction. The important thing here is that in all non-nuclear chemical reactions, matter must be conserved. As you can see, gasoline is a compound of carbon and hydrogen atoms. Carbon dioxide contains no hydrogen atoms, but they must be conserved in the reaction equation - they have to go somewhere!

So why is this important? As gasoline is burned, not only water vapor, but NOx and SOx are released into the atmosphere. All three of these compounds will tend to cause more clouds to form in the atmosphere. The more clouds that form, the sunlight that is reflected, and the less the earth is heated! Also, increasing the water content of the atmosphere increases the heat capacity of the atmosphere, meaning it takes more energy to heat the atmophere.

Now, from what I've heard, the current models skirt around the whole issue of water vapor. I haven't read any of the current global warming papers, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

IN ADDITION, it is my belief that global warming, true or not, is used as a scare tactic used by anti-fossil fuel pundits to encourage alternative energy sources. Why else would they emphasize scary sounding *CARBON DIOXIDE* (say it using one of those horror movie preview voices) and ignore water vapor?

Even if global warming is occurring, there is no proof that increased carbon dioxide emissions are the cause, direct or indirect. Rember, we're talking about something that makes up 0.03 - 0.05% of the earth's atmosphere. Wait, the percentage is actually smaller than that, because carbon dioxide is only 0.03% of the air on a DRY BASIS (ignoring water vapor).

There are other possible causes of global warming. Is it possible that the sun's sunspot cycle has an effect (check out this article from NASA's website: http://tinyurl.com/rytzu)? Are there geothermal contributions to the earth's surface temperature (the mass of the earth is increasing)? What about frictional tidal effects? I don't know the answer to these questions, but they're relevant and could all be affect the earth's climate.

[Harlan Huckleby]

IN ADDITION, it is my belief that global warming, true or not, is used as a scare tactic used by anti-fossil fuel pundits to encourage alternative energy sources.

A "scare tactic" implies dishonesty. The majority of Climate Scientists, along with the fossil fuel haters, would have to be united in a conspiracy of deception.

Why else would they emphasize scary sounding *CARBON DIOXIDE* (say it using one of those horror movie preview voices) and ignore water vapor?

Even if global warming is occurring, there is no proof that increased carbon dioxide emissions are the cause, direct or indirect. Rember, we're talking about something that makes up 0.03 - 0.05% of the earth's atmosphere.

There surely is an intelligent answer to the question that you raise.
It's not credible that the scientists on other side of debate are clueless.

(BTW, your water vapor argument was made to Supreme Court, to justify not including CO2 as a pollutant, controllable by EPA. The lawyer said if CO2 is pollutant, so is H2O).

Looking back 4 ice ages, the rise and fall of the earth's temperature tracks closely with CO2 levels. (data gathered from drilling into artic ice, I believe.) I don't know how a causal relationship is explained.

IT's impossible to debate GW on a technical level here. I wish we had an expert to respond to the excellent questions raised.

[SkinBasket]

Maybe someone could answer the question of why Office Depot sends me two boxes, each 4' x 2' x 8", in a 48 foot commercial semi. My boxes were the only contents of the trailer and the truck driver was just as confused as I was. I'm sure the 4 MPG that truck gets were a great way to get my shit to me.

[mraynrand]

Why rehash the same bullshit over and over. here's what I wrote in April of 2006

-----------------
The global warming issue is highly problematic due to a constellation of obfuscating issues, such as how knowledge is acquired, how predictive models are made and verified, how and why scientists conduct research, how scientists remain funded, scientific bias, agendas, and political and social constructs.

The global warming hypothesis, as it stands, suggests that human generated carbon dioxide emissions are the major source of a current warming trend across the globe. Furthermore, this warming trend is predicted to continue for at least 100 years, resulting in increases of up to 2 degrees F, resulting in the melting of polar cap ice and increases in ocean levels and severe weather. OK. So how do we know this and how certain are we? As a short aside, I will briefly point our that there are two general ways of acquiring information - through personal experience or through the confident belief in the acquisition by another (second-hand knowledge). Thus, for most information, we rely in the credibility of authority figures on a particular subject to determine whether or not we believe a piece of information to be true. For those of us (which means virtually everyone) we have to acquire knowledge about global warming second-hand, even if we read the primary research articles in Science Magazine or Nature (as I have done, BTW) Through scientific authority figures we know that carbon dioxide levels contributed by humans have increased and that some models predict dire future consequences. Essentially, to believe this, you have to believe that the method of the scientists is sound and that their motives and behavior are ethical. In other words, you must have faith, either in the scientific method in general or in particular scientists with credibility acquired by consistent accurate findings.

But what about these models the scientists create? How can we be CERTAIN that the future will bring what they claim? How accurate are the models? How can we know that conditions won't be altered due to changes in technology or behavior by the worlds peoples? The ability to predict the future is confounded by our inability to anticipate such major changes. Karl Popper referred to future predictions of this type as "the poverty of historicism." To find a more accessible pop culture reference, you could look at Asimov's Foundation science fiction series. In this series, future scientists called “psychohistorians" used mathematics to describe the behavior of large human populations. They used this mathematics to model human behavior, and thereby predict with great accuracy human future history. The wrench in the works was that they could not predict the effects of mutation or as Popper would say, they could not predict the unpredictable changes that might come at any time.

So we are left with models, that if run without any perturbation whatever, predict a warmer planet, rising seas, and bad weather. But are these models any good? In the biological sciences, scientists have been able to dissect the machinery that allows cells and microscopic free-living animals to move. Video microscopy, together with biochemical analysis of the 'skeleton' (cytoskeleton) of cells has helped scientists understand exactly how these cells can crawl. Using this information, scientist can model the movement using computer programs and the movement matches the observed at high fidelity. The best biological models are those FOR WHICH THE OUTCOME IS ALREADY KNOWN. In other words, because scientists understand so much, and can actually watch and record the movement itself, and they can model the movement. In the case of the weather models, the final outcome is of course unknown. Furthermore, the “skeleton" of the weather, that is, the critical parameters that contribute to the final outcome are incompletely defined. Until just recently, the temperatures in the upper atmosphere had not been measured accurately. Also, some scientists are wondering what other physical factors (and to what degree) will affect global temperature (such as volcanic eruptions, solar activity, etc.) Also unknown is how accurate the models will be in the long term given the incomplete input in the short term. Already, many iterations of long term warming models have been dispensed with due wild inaccuracies in the short term.

But what if the models are true? Strict materialists, who believe that life arose spontaneously billions of years ago and evolved into what we see now, have expounded on the virtues and survival capabilities of natural selection and Darwinian evolution. The earth that changed around evolving species saw incredible upheavals, and life survived and adapted. Are we to believe now that humans will be incapable of adapting to a maximum predicted rise of 2 degrees over the next 100 years? It's depressing to think that scientists and politicians have less confidence in the adaptability of modern man over say the Neanderthal.

And what about the scientists? Are they honest? Are they agenda free? Will they get funded if they model the future weather patterns and claim that things will be largely the same as now? In the health sciences, funding flows to those who are trying to find the causes of disease and the cures for such diseases. In fact, most governmental grants require some justification that research will have implications for some human disease. Thus, scientists are trained, or more accurately, forced, to study topics that in some way negatively affect humans. If you don't, you are much less likely to get funding. Look at the scientists studying educational techniques. Do they continue to get funded if they publish papers with titles like “Current methods for teaching math to fourth graders are perfectly adequate" or do they get funding if they produce a new method with 'better' results? Is it in their interest to find new and 'better' methods or to say things are just fine? Scientists are human beings, and they have to put dinner on the table, etc. They are subject to all the pressures to produce and uncover something novel and unique. Many are honest and have high integrity; some are not.

And that brings us to the political side. Ever since '“Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson, science has been infused with a dramatic spirit of activism. Mercury, lead, cholesterol levels, trans-fats, other chemicals naturally occurring in the environment (like radon) or from chemical plants, nuclear plants (tritium, warmed water released into streams), to stuff in our drinks (caffeine, etc. etc.) have all been treated with the same general approach: Something is killing us and something must be done. In many cases, the scientists were right and in many other cases they were horribly wrong (as in the case of DDT). The popularized image took hold of the caring activist exposing the cloistered huddling diabolical industrial company CEO who was deliberately poisoning the rest of us and cackling about it on his yacht (with heliport). There were battles to be fought and won, but activism itself took hold as an end in and of itself, with almost a religious fervor. Al Gore is celebrated because he is trying to right a wrong, and anyone opposed must be on the side of that stereotypical fat cat CEO. There seems to be no middle ground where people can say "There is an issue that needs to be addressed and handled rationally." I cite as a very recent example the column from Nicholas Kristof in the NYT where he says we have more to fear from Girl Scouts wielding peanut butter cookies with trans-fats that we have to fear from al Quaeda wielding box cutters and machetes. Without some return to rationality from scientists, politicians, activists and even the fat cat CEOs, there's no hope that the global warming issue itself will be anything more than a televised, agenda driven shouting match.

[bobblehead]

Well written rand, but its easier to point out that mars is experiencing global warming too....and as far as I know there is no human involvement.

Prior to that knowledge I was on the fence about this. I couldn't decide who to believe as I'm wary of both sides. But tell me that Mars is coincidently experiencing global warming at the same time as we humans are causing it on earth...well, that just stretches my imagination a bit.

[Kiwon]

How do you like this portion of Barack's new "Declaration of Independence?"

"We are here today not simply to pay tribute to those patriots who founded our nation in Philadelphia or defended it in Baltimore, but to take up the cause for which they gave so much. The trials we face are very different now, but severe in their own right. Only a handful of times in our history has a generation been confronted with challenges so vast. An economy that is faltering. Two wars, one that needs to be ended responsibly, one that needs to be waged wisely. A planet that is warming from our unsustainable dependence on oil."

By the way, the "Two wars, one that needs to be ended responsibly, one that needs to be waged wisely" part clearly indicates that he has no depth of understanding of the global threat of Islamic terrorism. It's more just mindless campaign-like rhetoric.